Astrophysics/Phil, why ? why ? why ?

You reverted to the "old" "outdated" "pitiful" values for earth in orbit.

You attempted to make a case against pure mathematical lightspeed reality with barbaric numbers and values.

You came across like an African voodoo witchdoctor in this 21st-century of technology.

And you completely avoided the very basics and foundational part of our question that we are asking about - mathematical law.

Why the attitude ?

Good thing you're not a medical doctor you probably wouldn't treat someone unconditionally, someone who isn't in line with your own religion.

Shame shame.

;0(

ANSWER: WHY the attitude? Check YOUR attitude in your original reply to me after I delivered a custom rejection. You put up a header about "whiskey" then asked "are you drunk?" and you expect sweetness and light from me? You are delusional beyond even your "pure lightspeed reality" rubbish.

I have really tried my best to be reasonable with you, even after your original response to my custom rejection (question NOT astrophysics - and I defy you to go to any other expert on this forum and try for a different take!) and your rude and abrasive 'drunk' remarks. But there is a limit to patience.

What I had to do is a retrospective check on earlier questions - because I detected the same snarkiness and attitude (YOURS) from another idiotic question concerning the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment back on October 11. Sure enough, the same disrespectful tones and extolling of utter nonsense emerged this time. Only your name was changed. Also reinforced by the same citation of the same spurious website - which I showed back then- couldn't even get the units for the Tesla correct. (You claimed 1/velocity = the Tesla and I showed the actual units, Wb/ m^2, didn't match.)

As I showed this time as well, there is NO "pure mathematical lightspeed reality" only physical reality defined by accepted (and measured) astrophysical and astronomical parameters, values. Your claim and the spurious website's that these are "barbaric numbers" merely puts you in league with crackpots and cranks of which there are many.

What I showed clearly is that even ignoring the "numbers" the units do not match to anything remotely yielding the Avogadro constant. And no, please do not tell me the units (SI) are "barbaric too!

The other laughable aspect is the long string of significant figures you give as for the mass of Earth, when the level of measurement accuracy doesn't allow that. Reinforcing that is using only two significant figures for the acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s/s ) which you DO appear to accept as a "decent" number while using :

5537831004648121688015772977.2114697 grams

for Earth's mass

Which again, is preposterous.

Like all cranks and crank worshippers you are predictable in extolling how your "pure mathematical lightspeed" version of reality is so, so very advanced over the "pedestrian" form used by real world physicists, astrophysicists. The trouble is you can't prove any of it by physical test or measurement, forced instead to use a ridiculous analog to numerology but in the guise of serious math/physics. (But again which is exposed when the consistency of units is checked)

But rather than accept the crank nature of your claims (as well as that idiotic website's) you simply double down on them and castigate me as "primitive".

What I suggest here is two things, to save further waste of bandwidth on this site:

1) Do not send me any further questions on ANY aspects of your "pure mathematical lightspeed" nonsense. (Especially now as you've been de facto "busted" - no matter what other name you assume) If you do they will be summarily rejected without comment.

2) Try to get hold of the book: 'Proofiness: How You're Being Fooled By the Numbers', by Charles Seife, which shows how and why such "numbers fetishism" advances neither science, genuine math or....aids common sense.

If you do try other experts, and I defy you to do so, I don't expect you will get any warmer reception for this bilge than I have conveyed. But hey, "Brianna" - you can always try!

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Phil, why ?

WHY ?

Why do you continue to kick against the goads ?

The explanation for "units" is right at the very start of the website.

Why do you "drudgingly" "laboriously" continue to claim that the units do not work ?

orbit velocity^2 / Pi = the speed of Light

On the website we never use complete equations in order to keep things as simple as possible for readers. The units in the above equation do not equal because the "complete" equation is;

If only you'd study instead of holding to your erroneous dogmatic ways.

If the world was made up of only Phil Stahls, we'd still be banging on rocks at cave entrances.

And what the frig is wrong with "precision" ? Just because you're given a numeric precision that is beyond current technical ability doesn't mean you can't work with it. Mercy, what a crazy way of thinking.

You must not believe that the zeros in Avogadro's number can actually be replaced with actual digits.

Phil, stop the madness, you're hindering our youth.

; 0 (

AnswerLook, Prof. Gort already also took down your nonsense and exposed your absurd website for the rubbish it is. In fact, I believed that he used that very word, "rubbish". I noted that you came back (as per your wont when you interjected the Michelson-Morley baloney 5 mos ago) asking about "coincidence".

Prof. Gort's reply was perfect, noting it IS coincidence if one uses an incorrect format or equations or units to get the "right" number. He then challenged you to test it with Venus or Mars. If this "lightspeed" equation of yours has any generality as to application of a real principle - as opposed to balderdash - I warrant it would work for them too. But alas, I see you have no comeback for him which proves our case that it is all rubbish.

You say you "never use complete equations to keep things simple" but, of course, this is also the sign of a crackpot or crank. Since they cannot bear too close scrutiny of their physical parameters they cloak the "real equations"- clearly so they can subsequently argue to critics that's not what they meant.

But as I noted 5 mos. ago (in our prior exchange) this is also wrong on its face because the units don't work. Again, the units for Tesla are webers per meters squared, NOT 1/ v! or s/m. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_%28unit%29

"The tesla (symbol T) is the SI derived unit of magnetic flux density, commonly denoted as B. One tesla is equal to one weber per square metre, and it was named in 1960[1] in honour of Nikola Tesla"

You can try to argue your m/s = m/s nonsense til the 'cows come home' but it won't change a thing'. You are hostage to a crank website. Admit it and move on.

Prof. Gort's take on all this is also spot on:

"This is strictly improper, as there is nothing physical at all to compare to. Second, numbers which are measured and not calculated are definitely wrong. The orbital velocity of the Earth is not calculated in this way, but measured via careful observations. These observations show us clearly that the Earth speeds up and slows down in its elliptical orbit, its orbit is definitely NOT a circle. These equations are based on perfect circles. The ether was disproven experimentally. The value listed for g varies over the surface of the Earth, this is measured all the time.

Serious scientists measure orbital parameters to ridiculous precision in order to compute the probability of asteroid impacts. These people dedicate their lives to this, and the simplistic equations on this page are definitely provably meaningless. The very units in them are arbitrary human units, if you just changed the units in equation 1 to feet per second instead of m/s the numbers end up way off. The careful readjustment of numbers in these equations to make them fit is somewhat ridiculous. "

You would do well to take his words seriously, and cease the stubborn defense of abject nonsense.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with precision so long as it is merited by the degree of accuracy of the actual measurements and so the significant figures are justified. But as Gort also noted in his original response to you:

"In equation #1, you CANNOT get "speed of light" from "velocity squared". That's the first thing that a physicist learns. And one CANNOT measure the mass of the earth as 5537831004648121688015772977.2114697 grams - that's 36 SIGNIFICANT DIGITS!! That's impossible!"

Got that? It's impossible!

Now, it's been fun (kind of) but I've more pressing business (finishing a textbook on solar physics) than to consume time with someone invested in crank theories and pseudo-science. Please leave us to our own humble astrophysics - as pedestrian as it may be compared to your "pure lightspeed" malarkey- and take your issues to sites that will be more hospitable. Say like conservapedia.

No more responses by you will be acknowledged. All further queries will be instantly rejected without reasons. Because you already have been given an ample supply of them!

Expertise

I specialize in stellar and solar astrophysics. Can answer questions pertaining to these areas, including: stellar structure and evolution, HR diagrams, binary systems, collapsars (black holes, neutron stars) stellar atmospheres and the spectroscopic analysis of stars – as well as the magnetohydrodynamics of sunspots and solar flares. Sorry – No homework problems done or research projects! I will provide hints on solutions. No nonsense questions accepted, i.e. pertaining to astrology, or 'UFOs' or overly speculative questions: 'traveling through or near black holes, worm holes, time travel etc.
Absolutely NO questions based on the twaddle at this Canadian site: http://members.shaw.ca/warmbeach/FAQ.htm purporting to show a "new physics".
Do not waste my time or yours by wasting bandwidith with reference to such bunkum.